Plaintiff
Ronnie Jackson alleges in this case that several
prison-official defendants, including Jeff Gutzmer, violated
his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual
punishment. Defendants moved for summary judgment, United
States Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson recommended that the
Court grant the motion, and Jackson filed objections. On
March 31, 2016, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment in part but denied the motion as it related
to Jackson's excessive force claim against Gutzmer.
Defendants appealed, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
issued an opinion on August 10, 2017, holding that Gutzmer
did not violate Jackson's Eighth Amendment rights. In
light of that opinion, the Court will grant Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Jackson's
excessive force claim against Defendant Gutzmer.

On
March 17, 2016, Jackson filed a motion asking the Court to
accept the late submission of an addendum to his objections
to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
(“R & R”) and seeking a preliminary
injunction to prohibit Defendants from withholding his legal
papers. Because his additional objections have no bearing on
the legal analysis of the Court's March 31, 2016, opinion
and the Eighth Circuit's August 10, 2017, opinion, the
Court will deny Jackson's motion as to the late
submission of objections. Furthermore, because the Court will
grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment with
respect to Jackson's excessive force claim against
Gutzmer, the Court will deny Jackson's Motion for
Preliminary Injunction as moot.

FACTUAL
BACKGROUND

In the
Declaration supporting Jackson's March 17, 2016, motion,
Jackson alleges that his legal papers were taken from him on
January 2, 2016, when he was sent to administrative
segregation. (Decl. of Ronnie Jackson (“Jackson
Decl.”) ¶¶ 2-4, Mar. 17, 2016, Docket No.
190.) His initial objections to the Magistrate Judge's
R&R were due while he was in administrative segregation,
thus he was forced to write the objections from memory
because he did not have access to all his legal papers.
(Id. ¶ 7, 9.) Specifically, Jackson alleges
that he did not have access to the legal documents that
pertained to the additional objections made in his
“Addendum Notice of Objection.” (Id.
¶ 9.) For this reason, Jackson asks that the Court
accept this “Addendum Notice of Objection”
although the deadline for filing objections has passed.

In his
“Addendum Notice of Objection, ” Jackson makes
three objections. First, he alleges that the Magistrate Judge
used an improper standard of review regarding the claim
against Defendant Saari and should have considered whether
“systemic deficiencies can provide the basis for a
finding of deliberate indifference.” (Addendum Notice
of Objection to Magistrate's R&R dated Jan. 28, 2016,
Mar. 17, 2016, Docket No. 192, ¶1 (citing Buckley v.
Rogerson, 133 F.3d 1125 (8th Cir. 1998)).)
Jackson's second and third objections allege that the
Magistrate Judge erred as to various factual findings
regarding when Jackson stopped his “negative
behavior” and as to when that fact was known to
Defendant Gutzmer. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.)

In the
Declaration supporting Jackson's March 17, 2016, motion,
Jackson also alleges that his legal papers were not
immediately returned to him when he came out of
administrative segregation on March 2, 2016. (Jackson Decl.
¶ 5.) While he was given access to his papers several
days later, he was not allowed to keep all of his papers with
him. (Id. ¶ 5.) Jackson alleges that 46% of his
legal papers were again taken away. (Id.) Jackson
alleges that Defendants' failure to give him access to
his legal papers “‘impedes or frustrates' the
legal process” and adversely affects his ability to
file papers relating to his case, to respond to deadlines,
and to properly cite or support documents. (Jackson Decl.
¶ 8.) For these reasons, Jackson seeks a preliminary
injunction ordering Defendants to immediately return his
legal papers and prohibiting Defendants from withholding
them. (Pl.'s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. ¶¶ 2-3, Mar.
17, 2016, Docket No. 188.)

DISCUSSION

Because
Jackson's additional objections would have no bearing on
the outcome of the case, the Court will deny his request to
submit a late “Addendum Notice of Objection” as
moot. Because the Court will grant Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment with respect to Jackson's excessive
force claim against Gutzmer, the Court will deny
Jackson's Motion for Preliminary Injunction as moot.

I.
Jackson's Motion to Allow “Addendum Notice of
Objection”

Jackson's
motion requests, in part, that the Court accept a late-filed
“Addendum Notice of Objection” to the Magistrate
Judge's R&R. Upon the filing of an R&R by a
magistrate judge, “a party may serve and file specific
written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations” within 14 days. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2);
accord D. Minn. LR 72.2(b)(1). Jackson did file
initial objections within 14 days. (See Pl.'s
Notice of Objs. to R&R (“Objs. to R&R”),
Feb. 9, 2016, Docket No. 184.) However, he now wishes to file
additional objections given that he did not have access to
all his legal papers when the 14 day deadline expired. The
Court is sympathetic to Jackson's situation; however, the
Court will deny Jackson's request because the additional
objections are moot.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.